If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

i dont know if its just me, but this CBA struggle has been so vague with the details.

I know the revenue sharing % between the owners and players will always be the top dilemma, but contracts over 5 years are now a problem? who's even fighting to end them? Teams get a discounted cap and players get job security...

But I havent heard ANYTHING of interest being discussed, like an amnesty clause, non guaranteed contracts, contract restructuring abilities.

But in the end, its not the players or the owners that suffer, its the people that make modest salaries working in the industry, whether its making popcorn, cleaning the bathrooms, selling tickets, etc, those people are temporarily unemployed. And this **** is so disrespectful to the fans that its disgusting.

i dont know if its just me, but this CBA struggle has been so vague with the details.

I know the revenue sharing % between the owners and players will always be the top dilemma, but contracts over 5 years are now a problem? who's even fighting to end them? Teams get a discounted cap and players get job security...

But I havent heard ANYTHING of interest being discussed, like an amnesty clause, non guaranteed contracts, contract restructuring abilities.

But in the end, its not the players or the owners that suffer, its the people that make modest salaries working in the industry, whether its making popcorn, cleaning the bathrooms, selling tickets, etc, those people are temporarily unemployed. And this **** is so disrespectful to the fans that its disgusting.

Sometimes I wonder if they even think about the fans in this situation.

What I cant stand is if you ahve season tickets, if you miss any games, they dont refund you. They say they will apply it to the playoffs or next season. To me that is really presumptious... My team might not make the playoffs, and I might not want season tickets next year...

Also the players will collect something like 15% of their salaries from an escrow account. So the players are getting paid while not playing, plus they can sign in Europe, the owners have already been paid this season by our season tickets.... A lockout really doesnt hurt anyone but the fans.

I understand that in order to put a good quality product on the ice, teams need to be profitable, but what I dont understand is why it has to wait to the last minute and involve the threat of no season to get it done. It's dirty business. I hope the NHL wins in this as they want a 10 year deal while the PA want a 4 year deal.... I woudl rather wait 10 years before this happens again.

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view.", "The circle is now complete. When I left you I was but the learner, now I am the master.", "I find your lack of faith disturbing.", "I can feel your anger... it gives you focus, it makes you stronger!"

The main issue is how far apart each side is on basically everything. The owners simply want to make sure small-market teams can't get screwed out of big-name, high-price players due to ridiculous heavily front-loaded contracts (Weber, Parise, Suter), as well as (and probably mostly) they're sick of teams losing money. By implementing a lower salary cap and shorter contracts that cannot be front-loaded, it enables small-market teams to be more competitive. The only downside to this...it hurts the teams that do have the money to put a star-caliber lineup on the ice. It sucks, but it would make more teams competitive and cause a lot more exciting end-of-the-season runs, among other benefits. The opposite could also happen though. Teams will be so evenly matched it makes the game boring. We could have another "Dead Puck Era" on our hands if the NHLPA gives in to the Owners' demands. Not to mention players will have to start taking pay cuts if they want to play on good teams. It's a shame, really, because hockey has been so good the last 3-4 years, with the exception of teams that haven't been good in years (Oilers, Leafs, Blue Jackets, Flames...to name a few). But I guess that's what the owners are trying to fix.

I understand that it's a slap in the face to us, the fans, but you also have to look at it from the Owners' perspective. Without competitive hockey, and these ridiculous contracts that owners keep handing out, you will see exactly what you see in other sports. You will have the same group of dominant teams every year, and then randomly the wildcard teams will pop up out of nowhere that get hot at the right time. In other sports the same teams make the playoffs virtually every year, and it takes years and years for other team to rebuild. And when they finally get good the salaries and contracts end up costing them so much it screws the team over in the long run. Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing, and I'm certainly not saying hockey isn't competitive, but I think the owners want it to be generally competitive with every team, for money's sake. To them the league would be much better if every team was competitive. But on the flip-side the players feel they should then be getting a larger percentage of Hockey Related Revenue towards their salaries based on the fact that they're the ones fans come to see play night after night. Then it becomes a catch-22 because that requires higher salaries and longer contracts.

It's really impossible for everyone to come out of this happy. But based on how the owners basically got punched in the nuts with the last CBA, there's no way they're going to back down now. I'm honestly surprised by how much the NHLPA has backed down with the proposals, and I'm even more surprised that the league has dismissed them. I expected them to be strong and not budge a whole lot, but the players really have been quite generous with their proposals.

What I cant stand is if you ahve season tickets, if you miss any games, they dont refund you. They say they will apply it to the playoffs or next season. To me that is really presumptious... My team might not make the playoffs, and I might not want season tickets next year...

Also the players will collect something like 15% of their salaries from an escrow account. So the players are getting paid while not playing, plus they can sign in Europe, the owners have already been paid this season by our season tickets.... A lockout really doesnt hurt anyone but the fans.

I understand that in order to put a good quality product on the ice, teams need to be profitable, but what I dont understand is why it has to wait to the last minute and involve the threat of no season to get it done. It's dirty business. I hope the NHL wins in this as they want a 10 year deal while the PA want a 4 year deal.... I woudl rather wait 10 years before this happens again.

that reminds me of yet another terrible thing. I recall some people hoping that if a new CBA isnt reached in time, then the league will just operate under the old CBA on a 1 year extension, giving them plenty of time to make a new CBA. Once the idea was put out there, Bettman immediately came out saying no way, if an agreement isnt made by sept 15, then there will be a lockout, no ifs and or buts.

The main issue is how far apart each side is on basically everything. The owners simply want to make sure small-market teams can't get screwed out of big-name, high-price players due to ridiculous heavily front-loaded contracts (Weber, Parise, Suter), as well as (and probably mostly) they're sick of teams losing money. By implementing a lower salary cap and shorter contracts that cannot be front-loaded, it enables small-market teams to be more competitive. The only downside to this...it hurts the teams that do have the money to put a star-caliber lineup on the ice. It sucks, but it would make more teams competitive and cause a lot more exciting end-of-the-season runs, among other benefits.

How about this. Institute a lower cap, and salary reduction on cap hits, but not on the actual current salaries. And either allow teams to trade cap space, up to 3 million, or institute a Lux Tax where the "Rich" Teams can spend over the cap if they want to pay out of pocket. The proceeds go to the teams that lose money.

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view.", "The circle is now complete. When I left you I was but the learner, now I am the master.", "I find your lack of faith disturbing.", "I can feel your anger... it gives you focus, it makes you stronger!"

How about this. Institute a lower cap, and salary reduction on cap hits, but not on the actual current salaries. And either allow teams to trade cap space, up to 3 million, or institute a Lux Tax where the "Rich" Teams can spend over the cap if they want to pay out of pocket. The proceeds go to the teams that lose money.

That all sounds great to me, butthe owners will never go for it. The whole issue right now is making the league more competitive in general so there's no floundering teams like the Oilers, Leafs, Etc. If you can't put a competitive team on the ice it's tough to get people in the seats and pay the bills, especially for smaller markets. If you force big markets to cut down on the money they can spend via salary cap it limits the amount of star-caliber a team can have. Therefore the stars will be more dispersed among more teams, making the league more competitive, and in turn putting more people inthe seats which means more money for the league. I must say, I agree with the owners stance in these discussions, but I don't agree with their tactics.

That all sounds great to me, butthe owners will never go for it. The whole issue right now is making the league more competitive in general so there's no floundering teams like the Oilers, Leafs, Etc. If you can't put a competitive team on the ice it's tough to get people in the seats and pay the bills, especially for smaller markets. If you force big markets to cut down on the money they can spend via salary cap it limits the amount of star-caliber a team can have. Therefore the stars will be more dispersed among more teams, making the league more competitive, and in turn putting more people inthe seats which means more money for the league. I must say, I agree with the owners stance in these discussions, but I don't agree with their tactics.

yea i dont agree with it either. If anyone else here knows their economics, it goes against Adam Smith's theory of the invisible hand. Theres no reason for the powers to interfere with how things naturally play out, because the "invisible hand" will naturally push and help things unfold.

The Penguins did it, sucking for a couple years and loaded up with Crosby, Malkin, and Fluery. Oilers are probably next to complete the cycle. We also saw Florida become a legit team with no real stars, just a change in their coaching.

The owners are being greedy. Last time I was firmly on their side, but this time, the owners are just being rediculous. They saw the NFL and NBA get fat deals and they want some of that pie.

as owners, they took all the risk ... they put down all the cash and built the teams and occassionally the arenas ...

they should be able to ask for whatever they want ...

the joke is that the NHL, NFL, MLB, etc. all have unions ... unions were made to protect workers in the 1890s - 1920s from deplorable conditions in meat packing and coal mining ... the fact that they have unions and collective barganing is a travesty ...

owners should guarentee contracts with individuals, not a group

owners making a league with rules is perfectly legal ... employees (players) thinking they should be entitled to cuts of profits besides what they make in salary and benefits (401k, health care, etc.) is BOGUS

not to politize hockey - but this is america and maximizing profits is why people are in business, not to whipe everyone's a$s and tell people it is special ...

when you own a business and you make the rules, what gives the employees the right to challenge your rules ... they earn a salary ... if they don't like the rules or the money, don't play ... the game will go on

as owners, they took all the risk ... they put down all the cash and built the teams and occassionally the arenas ...

they should be able to ask for whatever they want ...

the joke is that the NHL, NFL, MLB, etc. all have unions ... unions were made to protect workers in the 1890s - 1920s from deplorable conditions in meat packing and coal mining ... the fact that they have unions and collective barganing is a travesty ...

owners should guarentee contracts with individuals, not a group

owners making a league with rules is perfectly legal ... employees (players) thinking they should be entitled to cuts of profits besides what they make in salary and benefits (401k, health care, etc.) is BOGUS

not to politize hockey - but this is america and maximizing profits is why people are in business, not to whipe everyone's a$s and tell people it is special ...

when you own a business and you make the rules, what gives the employees the right to challenge your rules ... they earn a salary ... if they don't like the rules or the money, don't play ... the game will go on

meaning - TAKE THE DEAL NHLPA and let's play

Hockey is more than just a business though. Even so, any good business owner knows that to make the most money, you have to keep your employees happy. After all, good customer service is how you maintain repeat customers. In hockey the same can be said. Good hockey means people will keep coming back to watch. After all, the only reason the owners have the ability to build arenas and make money is because of the incredible talent found in the players who actually play the game. It has to work both ways. The NHLPA can't just lay down and accept the league's deal. It has to be fair both ways.